Has Biblical Theology Had Its Day?

Emergency measures are not good for long-term care. CPR can be a life-saving intervention, but it is not sustainable beyond the moment of crisis. Theologian Michael Allen wrote a pair of essays in 2020 in which he argued that the discipline of biblical theology has been a necessary emergency measure in the modern period but is not a helpful ongoing care regimen. For Allen, biblical theology has provided a helpful corrective to some of the deficiencies of modern hermeneutics, but it may no longer be necessary.^[1] In this essay, I will respond to his argument and offer an alternative, constructive vision of the role of biblical theology in biblical interpretation. Biblical theology can and should play an ongoing role in biblical interpretation, including in the Church.

1. Michael Allen, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology—Part One,” Journal of Reformed Theology 14 (2020), 57–72; Allen, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology—Part Two,” Journal of Reformed Theology 14 (2020), 344–357.

The Trajectory and Vulnerability of Biblical Theology

In recent decades, we have witnessed the ascendancy and even dominance of biblical theology in evangelical theology at both the academic and lay levels.^[2] The outsized role that biblical theology has come to play in evangelical handling of the Bible has led Allen to wonder if it has become overextended. Allen provides a helpful assessment of the trajectory of biblical theology within Reformed scholarship by profiling three key figures and their articulation of the nature of the discipline: Geerhardus Vos, John Murray, and Richard Gaffin. His main question is: Why did biblical theology become a distinct theological discipline in the first place? Allen demonstrates that advocates of biblical theology saw it as a necessary intervention in response to perceived tendencies in post-Reformation dogmatics to neglect the historical dimension of Scripture.^[3] It is this framing that sets up his own prescription for biblical theology moving forward.

There is much to appreciate in Allen’s analysis. First of all, we must consider the legitimacy of his central question. If biblical theology as a distinct discipline (distinguished especially from systematic theology) only arose beginning in the 18^th Century, and if the Church survived (and even flourished) without it for much of her history, do we really need it?^[4] Allen’s answer is that biblical theology has succeeded in helping exegesis to be more sensitive to redemptive-historical and canonical contexts, and thus it is no longer necessary as a distinct discipline. Biblical theology can still intervene if systematic theology becomes too far removed from the form of Scripture and from exegesis, but Allen sees biblical theology like an emergency measure or steroid injection that does not make for good long-term care.^[5]

Indeed, Allen points out that if biblical theology becomes the sole discipline informing exegesis, then exegesis will suffer rather than flourish, because biblical theology does not have the ability to engage in the kind of metaphysical reflection that Scripture regularly demands. For example, what are we to make of the report that God “regretted” making Saul king (1 Sam. 15:11), yet is by his own testimony “not a man, that he should have regret” (1 Sam. 15:29)? On its own, biblical theology lacks the tools to fully discern and articulate the coherence of these theological judgments. With only the help of biblical theology, one is at a greater risk of concluding from this passage that God changes or does not know the future. Theses that could result in part from an overemphasis on the biblical importance of narrative, to the point that even one’s doctrine of God becomes narratival. When divorced from the categories of systematic theology, biblical theology can become so dominant that it ceases to serve exegesis and instead undermines it.^[6]

Assessing Allen’s Assessment

Allen has rightly called attention to the dangers that come from biblical theology being so elevated in biblical interpretation that it distorts theological reflection. However, his prescription moving forward is for biblical theology to be like medication used as needed, but not on a regular basis. This leaves interpretation with two modes of biblical reasoning: exegetical reasoning and dogmatic reasoning (i.e., systematic-theological reasoning).^[7] For Allen, exegetical reasoning considers “each constituent passage or part” of the Word, while dogmatic reasoning “think[s] exegetically or receptively about the Word as a whole.”^[8] So in his framework, one of the key distinguishing characteristics of the two types of biblical reasoning is scope. While he acknowledges that good exegesis will display the kind of canonical awareness that biblical theology has emphasized, it nonetheless has a narrow focus on particular texts. Meanwhile, it is dogmatic reasoning that attends to the totality of Scripture, “rather than to a given point or passage.”^[9] Another way to put this is that exegetical reasoning focuses on the part, while dogmatic reasoning focuses on the whole, yet neither of them focuses on the Bible’s unfolding story or progression like biblical theology does. Instead, exegetical reasoning appreciates Scripture’s diversity, while dogmatic reasoning highlights its unity.^[10]

However, is dogmatics able to do all the synthetic work that there is to do in biblical interpretation? If dogmatic reasoning is the only mode of reflection that considers the Bible as a whole, is anything lost? While Allen focuses more on the academic realm (though certainly with an eye to the Church), the answers to these questions have ramifications for how all Christians read the Bible and for how pastors labor in preaching and teaching. Are these two modes of biblical reasoning as Allen presents them sufficient, or is there a better way to renegotiate the relationship of biblical theology with exegesis and systematic theology?

A Broader Vision for Biblical Theology

Part of what needs to be examined is the kind of biblical theology that Allen uses as his primary point of reference. The discipline of biblical theology covers a wide spectrum that is helpfully surveyed and illustrated by Edward Klink and Darian Lockett in their book, Understanding Biblical Theology.^[11] Klink and Lockett map five different species of biblical theology along a spectrum that highlights the extent to which attention to a historical horizon informs an interpreter’s engagement with Scripture. (They label these types Historical Description, History of Redemption, Worldview-Story, Canonical Approach, and Theological Construction.) As evangelicals, we are most familiar with what Klink and Lockett call “Biblical Theology: History of Redemption.” In this form, biblical theology generally operates chronologically, tracing the history of redemption and the development of biblical motifs and themes across the grand sweep of the biblical metanarrative. In his article, Allen is engaging primarily with this kind of biblical theology.

11. Edward W. Klink III and Darian R. Lockett, Understanding Biblical Theology: A Comparison of Theory and Practice (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2012).

However, there are other constructive proposals for biblical theology that are less subject to the concerns that Allen identifies. A simple definition of biblical theology is the study of the Bible on its own terms.^[12] The controlling question is: what are the Bible’s own terms? In other words, what are some categories and structures that Scripture itself presents to us as important for receiving the Word of God? Ched Spellman and Jeremy Kimble offer three helpful categories: the canon, the covenants, and the Christ.^[13] Each of these categories appreciates a dimension of Scripture that develops over time and is native to the Bible.

First, the canon refers to the way that biblical authors have associated their texts with one another, sometimes providing an explicit structure for interpretation. For example, the Old Testament is referred to as “Moses and all the Prophets,” or “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” by Jesus in Luke 24:27, 44.^[14] Biblical theology takes this canonical structure seriously and considers its interpretive implications.^[15] Second, biblical theology considers the biblical covenants. Again, the covenants are structures provided by Scripture itself that help one to understand how a given text is functioning within the overall progression toward the New Covenant. Third, biblical theology focuses on the centrality of the Messiah/Christ to both the Old and New Testaments.

13. Kimble and Spellman, Biblical Theology, 53ff.

Again, when it ignores systematic theology, biblical theology can become so historically oriented to the point that it actually obscures Scripture’s own categories and form, but this is not inherent to the discipline. Rather, biblical theology is uniquely equipped to appreciate a number of biblical categories and structures in a synthetic manner that aids understanding of both the parts and the whole of Scripture. Biblical theology has important work to do, and it can do it without sidelining systematic theology as Allen fears it may.

An Illustration from the Church

A sermon by James M. Hamilton Jr. at Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, provides a helpful example of biblical and systematic theology at work in the exposition of Scripture.^[16] I have chosen this example in the hopes that it will show that although these disciplinary discussions primarily take place in the theological academy (where disciplinary specialization is most beneficial and felt the strongest), they have implications for the Church and can pay off in the pulpit and the pew.

Hamilton preached on 1 Thessalonians 2:17–3:10 and he made the following observations. At the center of the passage lies the idea that the Thessalonians were destined to suffer affliction (1 Thess. 3:3b–4). In order to provide the larger biblical-theological context for this idea, Hamilton referred to the account of the apostle Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 (see especially Acts 9:16) and then spoke of how Paul would have understood his own appointed suffering by means of recourse to the Old Testament. Specifically, Hamilton suggested that Paul would have seen his gospel ministry in light of the epic conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman announced in Genesis 3:15 and developed in places like Psalm 2 and Daniel 7:21–22. The suffering of the saints is expected until the end and has been appointed by God to reach a full measure before the Lord’s return. This is why Paul can speak as he does of filling up the afflictions of Christ in Colossians 1:24 and why the answer to the question of “how long” until the Lord avenges the blood of the martyrs is: “a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been” (Rev. 6:10–11).

16. The following textual observations are those of Hamilton, used with his gracious permission. Hamilton has made his own constructive proposals for biblical theology. See for example, God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, Crossway: 2010). While his definition and practice is not exactly the same as the proposal that I have outlined here, the basic idea of tracing Scripture’s own development of a concept is shared and is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

This is an example of biblical theology: tracing the theme of conflict and suffering across the Bible in order to shed light on a particular passage and where it fits in the divine economy. Hamilton employed biblical theology as a tool to help his exegesis, and in so doing, he considered Scripture as a whole and how a unifying theme is developed from beginning to end.

Hamilton also observed that Paul speaks of standing “before” Jesus at his second coming (1 Thess. 2:19) and being “before” God in prayer (1 Thess. 3:10; the Greek word emprosthen is used in both cases). Hamilton suggested (in less technical language!) that Paul’s deployment of the same spatial orientation toward both Persons is indicative of the fact that Paul understands the Father and the Son to be on the same ontological plane. In this way, Hamilton demonstrated that the text implies a dogmatic framework that is consistent with orthodox Trinitarianism. In other words, this brief comment was a use of systematic theology, wherein an implicit theological judgment in the text was detected and seen for its coherence with a pattern of sound doctrine.

One can see how both biblical and systematic theology played a role in Hamilton’s sermon, and how both were prompted by exegetical consideration of the text being ministered to the church. In this example, it was biblical theology that considered the whole of scripture more than systematic theology. Moreover, biblical theology highlighted not only diversity but also unity across the canon. On the other hand, systematic theology was implicated by the single text being exposited.^[17] Both disciplines were helpful in exposing the meaning of the text for the saints.

17. These observations confirm that Allen’s characterizations of biblical theology being focused on particular texts and of dogmatic theology being focused on the whole of Scripture are not reliable as distinguishing markers of the disciplines.

Conclusion

So has biblical theology had its day? Not so fast. While it may be that the discipline of biblical theology has been overextended in times past, and while evangelicals are becoming more aware of the need for good systematic theology, the way forward is not to nearly jettison biblical theology altogether. If we do, we will miss out on the unique ways that biblical theology highlights the beautiful canonical tapestry that culminates in Christ and his New Covenant. Biblical and systematic theology need not be in competition, as Allen fears. Rather, they can and ought to partner together. Both of them help us understand what the Bible teaches as a whole, but in different ways. We need the tools that each discipline provides in order to read faithfully and to behold the full glory of Christ in his Word. Instead of a rarely needed prescription, biblical theology is more akin to a healthy diet, which pairs best with the regular exercise of systematic theology. With only one, we suffer malnourishment or weakness to our peril. But with both, the Body of Christ will have vitality and strength.